User talk:Susanfalconer2017

September 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 01:14, 14 September 2017 (U

It won't work to fall back on the "reliable source" complaint. The orthodox Shakespearean scholars have somehow been given licence to decide what is a "reliable source"--and it is whatever they say it is. That won't work at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanfalconer2017 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have cited no sources for the content you added and you removed contradictory statements that include inline sourcing. If you have sources that support your contention, you will need to supply them; otherwise, your assertions are unsourced and will be reverted. See WP:BURDEN and WP:V. General Ization ^Talk 01:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. General Ization ^Talk 01:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. General Ization ^Talk 01:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep making the better change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanfalconer2017 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 01:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Susanfalconer2017 reported by User:General Ization (Result: ). Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 19:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will do what you have to do. I will do what I have to do. It's your choice to continue with the lies and the slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanfalconer2017 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not compulsory. Nobody who "has" to editwar on WP gets anything done in the long run. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AntonChigurhs gun, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

General Ization ^Talk 15:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]